Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 1
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary: This title is according to the evidence (C. 2, al. b. Wetst.; also à [T., Tr., W. and H.]), and, since it is derived simply from Rev_1:1; Rev_1:4; Rev_1:9, the oldest. Further statements concerning the author run: ἀποκ . Ἰωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου (Elz.), καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ
ἣν ἐν Πάτμῳ τῳ νήσῳ ἐθεάσατο
ἡ ἀποκ . τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τ . θεολ .
ἀποκ . τοῦ ἁγίου ἐνδοξοτάτου ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ παρθένου ἠγαπημένου ἐπιστηθίου Ἰωαννου θεολόγου (cf. Wetst., Griesb., Matthäi).
Rev_1:2. The τε after ὅσα (Elz., Ewald) is properly deleted already by Griesbach, after A, B, C, min. The particle does not generally occur in the Apoc., for Rev_21:12 undoubtedly is found improperly in the Rec.; and even though Rev_19:18 after ἐλευθ . has good evidence ( à ), yet it is absent in A, and is not found in the parallel Rev_13:16. At the close of the verse it is added: καὶ [ ὅσα ἤκουσε ] καὶ ἄτινα εἰσι καὶ ἅ χρὴ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα (min. edd., b. Mill, Wetst.; cf. Rev_1:19.
Rev_1:3. ὁ ἀναγινώσκων κ . οἱ ἀκούοντες . Thus the preponderating evidence. The singular and plural also are found in both words.
Modification of the correct lectio media (Beng.).
The additions of τούτους to λόγους (C), and of ταύτης (min., Vulg. 2, Syr., Ar., Primas), should be here noted.
The reading τὸν λόγον τ . πρ . in B, à , Tisch. IX., also deserves consideration.
Rev_1:4.[450] The τοῦ before Ὁ ὬΝ , Κ . Τ . Λ . (Elz.), in opposition to A, C, à , min., is, like the ΘΕΟῦ (B, min.), an attempted interpretation. In the same way, the Ὃς (Erasm. 1) before ἨΝ , instead of the correct Ὁ .
Instead of ΠΝΕΥΜ . Ἄ ἘΣΤΙΝ (Elz.), not ΠΝΕΜ . ΤῶΝ (Lach., sm. ed. according to A; so also à ), but ΠΝΕΥΜ . Ἄ (B, C, al., Matthäi, Lach., Tisch., Lücke). The variations seem to originate with Andreas and Arethas.
Rev_1:5. The ἘΚ (Elz.) is, according to A, B, C, à , min., Vulg., etc., to be deleted (Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], etc.; cf. Col_1:18).
Instead of ἈΓΑΠΉΣΑΝΤΙ (Elz.), according to A, C, à , min., with Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch., read ἈΓΑΠῶΝΤΙ . The reading ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ ἩΜᾶς ἈΠῸ ΤῶΝ ἈΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ ἩΜΩΝ is uncertain. Even Lach. and Tisch. have vacillated in their edd. For ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ (Beng., Matth., Ew., Treg., De Wette, Tisch.) are B and Vulg.; but for ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ (Mill, Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) are A, C, à , 6, 7, 28, Primas. The ἘΚ which suits better ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ is well supported by A, C, à , 12. No decision is afforded by the remark of Andreas: Τῷ ΔΙʼ ἈΓΆΠΗς ΤῶΝ ΔΈΣΜΩΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΆΝΑΤΟΥ ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ ἩΜᾶς ΚΑῚ ΤῶΝ Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς ΚΗΛΊΔΩΝ ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ . Arethas says expressly, in repeating both conceptions: ΔΙΤΤΟΓΡΑΦΕῖΤΑΙ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΠΡῸς ΔΙΆΦΟΡΟΝ ἜΝΝΟΙΑΝ . So also, in Rev_2:2, he trifles with a dittography of ΚΌΠΟς and ΣΚΌΠΟς , of which the latter has no value in a critical respect. Ewald unjustly suspects ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ as the easier reading. Perhaps ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ has entered the text, because probably with a reference to Rev_7:14 written on the margin. Andr. and Areth. place ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ first, so that the ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ may appear as an interpretation. The idea following, in the context (Rev_1:6), suits better ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ .
The ἩΜῶΝ after ἉΜΑΡΤ . is omitted in A, 12, 16, but stands in C, à , Lach. large ed., Tisch.
Rev_1:6. Undoubtedly in the rec. reading, ἘΠΟΊΗΣ . ἩΜᾶς ΒΑΣΙΛΕῖς ΚΑῚ , Κ . Τ . Λ ., the ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊς is incorrect, against A, C, à , 2, 4, 6, etc., which offer ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ , and that, too, without the succeeding ΚΑῚ ; cf. Rev_5:10. The more difficult reading, ἩΜᾶς with ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ (Tisch., Ew. 2) is well attested by B, à (cf., on the other hand, Lücke, p. 471), and deserves, perhaps, the preference to ἩΜῖΝ (A, Syr., Ar., Lach. small ed.) and ἩΜῶΝ (C, Lach.), because both forms could serve as an interpretation. At any rate, the testimony of Cod. C, here confirmed by the Vulg., is more important than that of A; cf. Beng., Fund. cris. Apoc., sec. viii.
Rev_1:7. For μετὰ (A, à , Vulg. edd.), C has επὶ from Mat_24:30, etc.
Rev_1:8. The discredited addition αρχὴ καὶ τέλος is an interpretation.
Instead of ὁ κύριος (Elz.), the reading according to all the testimonies is κύριος ὁ θεός (Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).
Rev_1:9. After ὑ̔ πομονῇ , do not read Ἰησού Χριστοῦ (Elz.), but ἐν Ἰησοῦ (C, à , Vulg., Copt., Orig., Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Cod. A has ἐν Χριστῷ ; several minusc. (according to Wetst.), ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησ . (Tisch., 1854).
Rev_1:11. The addition after λεγούσης , ʼΕγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω , ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος καὶ (Elz.), is without attestation.
Rev_1:13. Instead of μαστοῖς (B, à , C, Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]), it is more proper[451] to write ΜΑΖΟῖς (A, 10, 17, 18, And., Areth., Lach.). Possibly, however, the author of the Ap. wrote ΜΑΣΤ , contrary to the general usage.
ΧΡΥΣᾶΝ ; so Lach., Tisch., Rev_1:12, according to A, C, à . Tisch., in 1854, had received the form ΧΡΥΣῆΝ (Elz.).
Rev_1:15. ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝῌ . To this reading, the meaningless clerical error in A, C, points; viz., ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝΗς (originating from N, H, I), which form Lach. has received. The modified ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝΟΙ (B, Elz., Tisch.) is without sufficient attestation. ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝῌ , perhaps ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝῼ (Mill, Prol., 371, 507; Beng., Gnom., in loco), is supported by the in camino ardenti of the Vulg. (cf. Syr.). The Mas. ( à , Tisch. IX.) would belong to the χαλκολ ., but incorrectly; see exposition.
Rev_1:20. ὀὓς , Elz., Tisch.: ὧν incorrect, and opposed to A, C, à , 8, and the usage of the Apoc. Bengel already, like Lach., Tisch. IX., has οὓς . ἐπὶ τῆς δ . μ . Elz., Tisch., after C, à . ἐν τῇ δ . μ . occurs (A, Lach.) because of Rev_1:16.
[450] In reference to Rev_1:4-10 of the critical text of Lachmann and Tischendorf, cf. Lücke, Einl., p. 488 sqq. For criticism of text, cf. especially F. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, Heft I. Die erasmischen Entstellungen, etc., Leipzig, 1861, ii. 1862.
[451] Suidas: μαζὸς κυρίως ἐπὶ ἀνδρὸς
καταχρηστικῶς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ γυναικὸς , μασθὸς καὶ μαστὸς κυρίως ἐπὶ γυναικός , κ . τ . λ . [“ μαζὸς , properly of a man, but by catachresis also of a woman. μασθὸς and μὰστος , of a woman”]. Cf. Wetstein, who has still more authorities. Luk_23:29, in Cod. C, has against this usage, μαζοί .